Our policies, for example original research, prevent us from including personal accounts. Here are some helpful links:

Welcome!

Hello, Qewr4231, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to International Churches of Christ has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding repeated information into different places of the same article. - Altenmann >t 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Qewr4231 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bobby Tables (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Kip McKean. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Kevin (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on International Churches of Christ. Thank you. Please remember that personal attacks, like this one, should be avoided. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to International Churches of Christ, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also, remember WP:3RR Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 06:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. What I am trying to point out is that the Wikipedia article on the International Churches of Christ before I made any edits to it seems to be biased towards the International Churches of Christ and not neutral or encyclopedic. Most of the links go to websites operated by the International Churches of Christ and reputable websites that go to websites not owned by the International Churches of Christ somehow get deleted. Basically the article seems to be written by International Churches of Christ members with a pro-ICOC slant. The article is not neutral at all and that is what I am trying to get across. I was a leader in this cult, and now group of cults, and was in this for 6 years. I know what I am talking about. Ask any ex-member of the ICOC, and there are many, and they will tell you that they were used up and spit out by the cult.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically members of the ICOC and new movements are using this ICOC wikipedia article on the ICOC as an evangelism tool to recruit more people into the ICOC movements. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Albert Baird has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Questionable Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Minimac (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Churches of Christ history goes back to 1979 when Kip and Elena Mckean, Al and Gloria Baird, Bob and Pat Gempel decided to form their own organization called the International Churches of Christ. Al Baird is still with the International Churches of Christ working in Los Angeles as an evangelist and Deacon/Elder. Al Baird chose not to leave with Kip Mckean when Mckean broke away from the International Churches of Christ. The problem with the International Churches of Christ and new movements spurned from it is that most of the information is either for or against it. There is very little encyclopedic information on these cults. I know because I was leader in this cult and I was in it for 6 years. Ex-members always leave the cults in anger because the cults eat people up and spit them out. Current members are brainwashed into being 110% for the cults. The International Churches of Christ cults are basically pyramid schemes with the money going to the top of the pyramid. Also, the ICOC cults lie about their history and don't tell the truth.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Albert Baird has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable minister.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Churches of Christ history goes back to 1979 when Kip and Elena Mckean, Al and Gloria Baird, Bob and Pat Gempel decided to form their own organization called the International Churches of Christ. Al Baird is still with the International Churches of Christ working in Los Angeles as an evangelist and Deacon/Elder. Al Baird chose not to leave with Kip Mckean when Mckean broke away from the International Churches of Christ. The problem with the International Churches of Christ and new movements spurned from it is that most of the information is either for or against it. There is very little encyclopedic information on these cults. I know because I was leader in this cult and I was in it for 6 years. Ex-members always leave the cults in anger because the cults eat people up and spit them out. Current members are brainwashed into being 110% for the cults. The International Churches of Christ cults are basically pyramid schemes with the money going to the top of the pyramid. Also, the ICOC cults lie about their history and don't tell the truth.Qewr4231 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. Thank you for telling me. I am sometimes not sure where to post information. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the the content preceding my signature three and a half years ago (read the timestamp). Some idiot vandal added the phrase you are up in arms about. Take it up with them. Or just edit it out if it bugs you so much. Also, when commenting on a talk page, you should sign your name with four tildes ( ~ <---- a tilde). Happy editing. Buck O'Nollege 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:International Churches of Christ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following template contains a lot of useful links to pages that explain how Wikipedia works. Arcandam (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qewr4231, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Arcandam (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, Qewr4231. You have new messages at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ.
Message added by Arcandam (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC). You can at any time.[reply]

You continue to insert information into the International Churches of Christ page that is not of an encyclopaedic nature, please understand Wikipedia is not a gossip column, blog, facebook page or a forum. It is an Encyclopeadia, treat is as such! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for posting my own negative experiences in the ICOC. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011 are you a knowledgeable and credible source on the ICOC?? Do members of the ICOC make knowledgeable and credible sources on the ICOC? Do ICOC leaders make knowledgeable and credible sources on the ICOC?? (I'm not saying you are a member or leader in the ICOC. I have no idea who you are.) I'm just wondering what a credible source on the ICOC is. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new dispute on the ICOC article page. You may undo the work of an editor you disagree with so long as you justify it on the talk page. I think you might find some of the recent edits disturbing. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia ICOC page is so messed up. It's hard to tell what is fact and what is opinion anymore. I think JamieBrown11 and some past editors such as TransylvanianKarl are ICOC members. The ICOC is a fairly secretive organization in that people who are not part of the ICOC don't really know what goes on in the ICOC. As a person that has been a member of the ICOC for six years, and as a person familiar with Kip Mckean, what the ICOC presents as fact and what really happens in the ICOC are two separate things. Many of the facts in the Wikipedia ICOC article are only verifiable by hardcore members of the ICOC, and the facts are not verifiable by people outside of the ICOC. The Wikipedia ICOC page has so many opinions and unverifiable facts that the article is simply unreliable and is definitely not encyclopedic in quality. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Qewr4231. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove dead links for no reason. There's a possibility the links can be repaired, as was the case at International Churches of Christ. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the dead links on the International Churches of Christ page are still dead links and have not been repaired. How long do Wikipedia users and readers have to wait for a link to be repaired or fixed? Qewr4231 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are still dead? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are fixed NOW, but it's been months if not over a year that some dead links were left unfixed, and they are just now being fixed. My point is that this is a long time for people to leave dead links in a Wikipedia article. If I hadn't pointed out the dead links the dead links would never have been fixed. Qewr4231 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but that's how Wikipedia works. When random people see a problem, they're encouraged to try to fix it themselves. Nothing's wrong with what happened. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]